Thailand : It's not just the money

You are very rich, and having too much money, are desirous of offloading some. Maybe you should buy a property in Sauternes. According to the UK magazine Decanter, Chateau de Malle is for sale for what it calls the "astonishing" price of "68 million". What Decanter does not specifies is millions of what. Dollars? Euros? Pounds?

Chateau de Malle is described by Hugh Johnson as a very fine, medium bodied wine, and it gets three stars. But 68 million? Even in US dollars it's a lot. In Bordeaux, agents estimate that the winery is worth about half of that price. "The price is completely crazy," said one of them.

By comparison the superb Chateau Guiraud, one of the best Sauternes, was sold in 2007 for 50 million (again no more specification). OK, with the vineyard you'll also get a nice 17th century chateau, "renowned for its Italian interior and gardens." Still...

Rain or shine, 2008 and 2009 will be remembered as difficult years for the wine industry in general. There will be good wine, but many wineries will be or already are experiencing serious financial problems.

Take the French vins de table and vins de pays for instance. It looks like the overall sale of these wines could drop in 2008/9 by 23 percent compared to 2007/08. Only in supermarkets the sales of rose, vins de pays and sparkling wine went up, which means that people are buying cheaper wine and sparklers rather than the pricier champagne.

People in Europe who previously bought from specialist shops or directly from wineries are now inclined to acquire bottles from supermarkets where the emphasis is more on price than quality - unlike some supermarkets in Thailand which tend to have good selections of medium-priced wine.

On top of the economic crisis, the Champagne region has endured bad weather in the days of flowering and production could go down 20 percent.

The most alarming message comes form Australia. James Halliday, winemaker, writer, judge and one of Australia's leading authorities on anything oenological, warned recently the country could become a "third world wine producer."

In his Australian World Companion 2010 he mentions world recession, an excess of wine, drought, exchange fluctuation and global warming as signs that contribute to make "the future of the Murray Darling almost impossible to predict."The Murray Darling Basin is 3,375 kilometres long, draining one seventh of Australia's land.

It encompasses the main agricultural region and much of the best wine territory of Australia. As for the name, it comes form the two major rivers: the Murray and the Darling. One of its problems is that it receives very little rain.

Out of these and other issues, James Halliday observes that, "the view has emerged that the annual crush should be permanently reduced by up to 400,000 tonnes... So 46,500 hectares will have to be removed."

Water is becoming a very serious issue and not only in Australia but in other parts of the world, notably California.

Mr Halliday is still quite optimistic, though, based on when, from 1995 to 2000, "Australia came from nowhere to become the fourth largest exporter in the world... you don't have such success unless you have a really good product with commitment behind it."

But, he warns: "The current position of the Murray Darling is horrible. At best we are trading water in terms of water rights. Future allocation will go to the cities and to keep livestock alive."

Back to France, with the US in mind. If you visit wine shops in most of the US you'll notice the almost total absence of "small Bordeaux." These wines represent more than half of the Bordeaux production and many are made by young and talented winemakers. But with the exception of large shops in New York or Boston, they are very hard to find.

They are about to launch an offensive in the US with the help of some American friends. When people there think about mid-priced wines they go for Australian, Chilean, Argentinean or New Zealand bottles. The image of Bordeaux is that of very expensive wines for an older generation.

This goes for Thailand too. We should know that there is life after Chateau Petrus or Margaux - even in France, even in Thailand.

By www.investments.by Investments in Belarus, Thailand, Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos.

Thailand: Asean policy and trade Thailand - Burma

Having just seen PM Abhisit Vejjajiva's interview on BBC World news, I am left with the wholly depressing conclusion that salvation for the Burmese people is not going to come from Asia - and certainly not from Asean.

No amount of words from the erudite and well-spoken prime minister can hide the fact that Asean is, even now, sanguine about doing business with a completely criminal regime that has a record of theft and murder.

Asean is unperturbed by its business relationship with the junta, even as it wrings its hands over the incarceration of Aung San Suu Kyi and the dreadful situation in Burma.

In the interview, PM Abhisit signally fails to clarify why it would be counter-productive for Asean to ''pressure'' the regime with even the threat of Asean sanctions. On this point I think it is beholden on the media in Thailand and internationally to be much more forceful on this issue: Asean definitely has the leverage, as any economist who knows about Burma's trade, will tell you.

Burma's trade is the regime's oxygen; it is vital to keep this monster alive. The natural resources that the regime trades (mainly with Asean) funds the army and fills the generals' bank accounts. It signally does very little to support the Burmese people at all. For instance, I wonder if the tripartite core group can give a realistic figure of the amount of money the regime has actually spent on relief and redevelopment in the cyclone-devastated areas?

When the history of this appalling affair is written, Asean will be seen in a very bad light indeed _ unless it decides to change its policies in favour of the Burmese people instead of a bunch of murderous and thieving thugs. Even now it is not too late.

JULIAN PIENIAZEK

Hellish labyrinth

I appreciate Gotfried's Gobbledegook column in Wednesday's Bangkok Post Database section: ''The US Embassy online -  your gateway to hell.'' After scratching my head several times trying to figure out how to register for an appointment at the US Embassy, and then having to carefully read all of the rules for the appointment, it amazes me how the huge American bureaucracy survives in its own mess.

We just want to take our kid's nanny for a simple short visit to the US. Gotfried's comments are appropriate: ''Do the people at the American Embassy find this amusing?'' The visa fee is very expensive, and that too had me scratching my head because the fee has to be paid at a Thai Post Office, not the US Embassy - go figure.

The frustration increases when one has to complete the ridiculous paperwork, such as submitting an employment contract for our nanny. Am I lost or what? How many maids and nannies here have an employment contract?

This next visa prep item had me seething: I have to state all the reasons why she does not want to stay in America, with supporting evidence.

I wonder how Thai people with minimal English skills get through this process. As for me, I found the whole thing confusing and not easy to understand, especially some of the questions asked.

As Gotfried rightly points out, ''Implementing a lousy system not only annoys your customers, it harms your own image.''

HAPPY 2B HERE EXPAT - Send Newin to Burma

I agree with the correspondents who write to criticise the Thai government for its pathetic response to the treatment of Aung San Suu Kyi.

The Thai government is in a unique position to provide an envoy to intervene on The Lady's behalf. After all, if the junta are going to listen to anyone, surely a man named in admiration of that junta's founder, Ne Win, would be the ideal candidate? Step forward, Newin Chidchob!

DOM DUNN

In cahoots with the junta

JW Jacobs' letter to Post Bag had a phrase that touched on the real problem that faces Burma today. The phrase, ''such evil for profit'', defines the atrocities and theft of Burma's resources by Than Shwe, his henchmen and their joint-venture corporate partners.

This is not a political battle, it's an economic resources battle, where governments fulfil their obligations to their corporate masters.

Simply put, no one can conduct business in Burma unless they sign up to a joint-venture partnership with the junta's military-run companies.

All the posturing and threats of sanctions by world leaders will fall on the generals' ''deaf ears'', in their knowledge that they have what these resource-hungry drivellers are addicted to: profits and resources.

Sarkozy can talk the talk but his government's partners, Total Inc, and its junta partners, still control the gas fields. Consider Thailand's PTTEP another govt-junta partnership.

Consider Singapore, the financial conduit for the junta. Consider Gordon Brown, with over 100 English companies in partnership with the junta. If these world leaders are serious about the sanctions, then they are obligated to levy a heavy tax on all corporations active in Burma.

Let's not forget China's recent statement, ''Stay out of the internal affairs of Burma,'' meaning: ''We are making easy billions on cheap resources and are building transport infrastructure across Burma into China to save on time and money for our exploited African resource deals. Don't spoil our party.''

MICHAEL C

By www.investments.by Investments in Belarus, Thailand, Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos.